The well connected Mr. Gelb gives cynicism a bad name by Myra Breckenridge

I know that you, like me, never miss the opportunity to read,even on the sly,The Daily Beast. My friend Tina Brown has rescued more failures than Abe Burrows (look it up on Wikipedia), or at the least she valiantly tried. But the 'Beast' is her baby and she has made some shrewd choices in her stable of writers, Leslie Gelb is one such writer, a man with the credentials to make his opinionating stick, as they used to say several generations ago. And the White House connections that also make his opinionating pretty credible. His latest piece is titled 'Why Obama Won't Speed U.S. Troop Withdrawal in Afghanistan' and when it comes to exercising political cynicism Mr. Gelb doesn't have an equal, The Bundy brothers, Wolfowitz, Perle or Condoleezza Rice don't quite match the Gelb iteration of that old reliable political standby. The narrative according to Gelb is that President Obama is too politically savvy to end the war in Afghanistan in an election year and face a Republican attack on his 'National Security Policy' i.e. the toned downed 'War on Terror'. President Obama has been very good at positioning himself as tough in the area of Foreign Policy, the killing of bin Laden, of al-Awlaki and the seemingly endless number of drone attacks and the NDAA legislation, which establishes, in the public mind, his 'resolve' his 'toughness'. So he will wait till 2014 to really start to end this catastrophie in Afghanistan. Could one say, in a singular moment of candor, that great political leadership is informed by wise politics and the exercise of a shared public morality? Or would that strain the bounds of political realism, as argued by Mr. Gelb? I look forward to Mr. Gelb's subsequent attempts to answer such questions.

Sincerely yours,

Myra Breckenridge 

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.